Polar Bear
- Thread starter oldbillthundercheif
- Start date
jssbastiat
Inactive
Your ALL wrong on hunting polar bear in US!!!! Yes you can, IF????
If your a registered member of a native corporation in alaska...
in 1973, the natives of alaska signed the Alaskan Natives Claims Act and were given approximately 100000 of thousands of acres in land and close to like one billion dollars or so in money....they divided up alaska into like 13 regions and incorporated instead of doing reservations...except for one tribe whome for whatever reason did stay as a reservation...now, they are coproratioins leasing loggin/mineral rights, fishing rights, running coops, gold mines nad many times being shut down for embelzelment and fraud, oh and racketeering....
in the settlement, because they used polar bear, walrus, seal, and other aquatic animals, oh, whales, they are the ONLY ones whom can legally take any of these animals...with no limits!!!!!! none are endangered....maybe the whale, depending on which one.....but i live in Ak and know for a fact that this is the law...actually, it is governed by a federal law, "aquatic marine/mamal act" or something like that...
but, a person whom is not registered with a corporation, IE white person, or non native.....cannot even TOUCH, help skin or tan one of these animals even with a native there UNLESS you are registered with the govt as a tanner, etc....its a huge deal here with the natives....
NOW, i know of people that go out with natives in the north and the native lets them 'shoot' their polar bear...they skin it and send it to a tanner for you and you tip them...now, i';m not saying it's legal, but, just saying that is what is done..and hey, it's their land, their animals....i don't have a problem with it...
but, you know, next time someone po'pos' immigration control...poiint out what happened to the natives here in america when they did not violently oppose white immigration to america!!!!....geeeeez, if they would have turned back europeans from teh beginning, the world might look alot differnet today.....no major vaccines, no space shuttles, but, lots of polar bears and animals to hunt!!!..hey, I kind alike this alternate world!!!!
but, those are the facts! seal season is on right now in the village i live in!...
scotty
If your a registered member of a native corporation in alaska...
in 1973, the natives of alaska signed the Alaskan Natives Claims Act and were given approximately 100000 of thousands of acres in land and close to like one billion dollars or so in money....they divided up alaska into like 13 regions and incorporated instead of doing reservations...except for one tribe whome for whatever reason did stay as a reservation...now, they are coproratioins leasing loggin/mineral rights, fishing rights, running coops, gold mines nad many times being shut down for embelzelment and fraud, oh and racketeering....
in the settlement, because they used polar bear, walrus, seal, and other aquatic animals, oh, whales, they are the ONLY ones whom can legally take any of these animals...with no limits!!!!!! none are endangered....maybe the whale, depending on which one.....but i live in Ak and know for a fact that this is the law...actually, it is governed by a federal law, "aquatic marine/mamal act" or something like that...
but, a person whom is not registered with a corporation, IE white person, or non native.....cannot even TOUCH, help skin or tan one of these animals even with a native there UNLESS you are registered with the govt as a tanner, etc....its a huge deal here with the natives....
NOW, i know of people that go out with natives in the north and the native lets them 'shoot' their polar bear...they skin it and send it to a tanner for you and you tip them...now, i';m not saying it's legal, but, just saying that is what is done..and hey, it's their land, their animals....i don't have a problem with it...
but, you know, next time someone po'pos' immigration control...poiint out what happened to the natives here in america when they did not violently oppose white immigration to america!!!!....geeeeez, if they would have turned back europeans from teh beginning, the world might look alot differnet today.....no major vaccines, no space shuttles, but, lots of polar bears and animals to hunt!!!..hey, I kind alike this alternate world!!!!
but, those are the facts! seal season is on right now in the village i live in!...
scotty
jssbastiat
Inactive
one more note on how Alaska is divided up, land wise...
Ok, the 13 native corps got 1000 'sof acres of land each....but, the govt took the native regions each tribe lives in....and took the hectres of land, or, actually, 5 sq blocks i believe, what ever that is called...and divided like every other block to the govt, one to the natives, one to the govt, one to the natives....so, our freaking hunting maps look like a freaking checker board! Then, in the middle of this, there are other private lands blocked off and then federal hunting lands blocked off, THEN FREAKING FEDERAL preserves that you CANNOT hunt!!!!...
so, to hunt legally you gotta have a freaking gps since your not suppose to cross private lands, ie the native corps or any other homestead sites!!!!!
but, it's so remote, you just go through the native lands toget to the blm or federal lands or STATE govt lands, hell, I left them out!...
get my point...alaska can be a tangle web of snares that you can screw yourself in within a heartbeat....and everyone knows it...especially if your a white guy living in a native village.....you'll go out and do something everyone else says is legal or you perceive is ok, but, then it's not nad your the only one someone. long pee ant in the village will report!!!! jsut because they don't like white folk...and let me tell you, where I live, almost all the natives are nice and accepting of white folk, but all it takes is oneto catch you making a mistake....
for what it is worth!
scotty
Ok, the 13 native corps got 1000 'sof acres of land each....but, the govt took the native regions each tribe lives in....and took the hectres of land, or, actually, 5 sq blocks i believe, what ever that is called...and divided like every other block to the govt, one to the natives, one to the govt, one to the natives....so, our freaking hunting maps look like a freaking checker board! Then, in the middle of this, there are other private lands blocked off and then federal hunting lands blocked off, THEN FREAKING FEDERAL preserves that you CANNOT hunt!!!!...
so, to hunt legally you gotta have a freaking gps since your not suppose to cross private lands, ie the native corps or any other homestead sites!!!!!
but, it's so remote, you just go through the native lands toget to the blm or federal lands or STATE govt lands, hell, I left them out!...
get my point...alaska can be a tangle web of snares that you can screw yourself in within a heartbeat....and everyone knows it...especially if your a white guy living in a native village.....you'll go out and do something everyone else says is legal or you perceive is ok, but, then it's not nad your the only one someone. long pee ant in the village will report!!!! jsut because they don't like white folk...and let me tell you, where I live, almost all the natives are nice and accepting of white folk, but all it takes is oneto catch you making a mistake....
for what it is worth!
scotty
CarbineCaleb
New member
The trouble with the idea of the polar bears just moving north is, the further north you go, the less area is left on the big blue marble, so the habitat is shrinking.
Seals live at the interface of the ice and the sea, and polar bears eat seals as their principle dietary component, so they too, live at this interface. The bears normally ambush the more agile seals when they come up for a breath of air in a breathing hole in the ice. I don't think they can catch them in open water or on the shoreline very well, so even if the seals could tolerate the dissappearence of the ice, the bears cannot.
The Arctic is largely composed of the Arctic Ocean, with ice floating on it - there is no land mass at the North Pole. There has been approximately a 1/3 reduction in the mass of this sea ice in the last 30 years alone, a shrinking trend that's been going on since at least the turn of the last century. Here's a comparison of satellite photos across 24 years, summer 1979 to summer 2003. The land masses are Siberia, Greenland, and Northernmost Canada:
Is the ice all gone yet? No. Is there a significant long term trend of decline? Yes.
Seals live at the interface of the ice and the sea, and polar bears eat seals as their principle dietary component, so they too, live at this interface. The bears normally ambush the more agile seals when they come up for a breath of air in a breathing hole in the ice. I don't think they can catch them in open water or on the shoreline very well, so even if the seals could tolerate the dissappearence of the ice, the bears cannot.
The Arctic is largely composed of the Arctic Ocean, with ice floating on it - there is no land mass at the North Pole. There has been approximately a 1/3 reduction in the mass of this sea ice in the last 30 years alone, a shrinking trend that's been going on since at least the turn of the last century. Here's a comparison of satellite photos across 24 years, summer 1979 to summer 2003. The land masses are Siberia, Greenland, and Northernmost Canada:
Is the ice all gone yet? No. Is there a significant long term trend of decline? Yes.
Attachments
Last edited:
So the Canadian Prairies dont look so bad after all. See you later Los Angeles. I have kept current on the whole global warming issue in my last two years in college and to be honest there are so many reports out there that contradict and completely flip-flop that the only way to see if global warming is true is to wait it out and see. The general consensus in the scientific community is that the ice caps are melting and that global warming is occuring, however the effects will be much worse than not being able to hunt polar bears.
If you have 30K around you should really send it to me because polar bears are dangerous and have been known to turn the hunter into the hunted in several instances. Ill take that 30K, invest it, and send you some pictures of my nice new truck.
kingudaroad
New member
They have a hard time predicting tomorrows weather let alone in a few decades. But if it said so on the internet, that's different.
CarbineCaleb
New member
It is correct to point out the difficulty of making precise predictions decades out. However, there is a big distinction to be made here - the task is not to predict for example, the weather in Cleveland on Tuesday, October 15, 2051, which would be impossible. The task is, for example, to predict the global average temperature for the year 2051. That is a very different task and while difficult, it is certainly approachable.
There really is no serious debate that the greenhouse effect exists (radiation physics or chemistry for those so inclined) and is what keeps the earth much warmer than it would otherwise be (this can be directly calculated), nor that the greenhouse effect is due to greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide and methane (can be established by the known absorption spectra and atmospheric concentrations), nor that the earth is warming due to increased concentrations in greenhouse gases (can be seen directly in measurements), due principally to the activities of man (can be deduced from known anthropogenic sources, such as the burning of fossil fuels for energy and transportation).
So the earth *is* warming, and it's going to get worse. The place where the debate really is, is on the predictions of how much worse it will be, decades out. The early models showed relatively poor agreement with data, but the latest models are actually quite impressive.
Of course, even if the models were 100% accurate, no one can still tell exactly what the global average temperature will be in 2050 - because we may do something differently between now and 2050. That is the whole point of the debate - what should we be doing differently to avoid negative consequences?
There really is no serious debate that the greenhouse effect exists (radiation physics or chemistry for those so inclined) and is what keeps the earth much warmer than it would otherwise be (this can be directly calculated), nor that the greenhouse effect is due to greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide and methane (can be established by the known absorption spectra and atmospheric concentrations), nor that the earth is warming due to increased concentrations in greenhouse gases (can be seen directly in measurements), due principally to the activities of man (can be deduced from known anthropogenic sources, such as the burning of fossil fuels for energy and transportation).
So the earth *is* warming, and it's going to get worse. The place where the debate really is, is on the predictions of how much worse it will be, decades out. The early models showed relatively poor agreement with data, but the latest models are actually quite impressive.
Of course, even if the models were 100% accurate, no one can still tell exactly what the global average temperature will be in 2050 - because we may do something differently between now and 2050. That is the whole point of the debate - what should we be doing differently to avoid negative consequences?
Of course, Mars is also seeing a global warming trend, according to some recent data. And I don't think they have a greenhouse gas problem... maybe it's something else?
Either way, I hope the OP gets his polar bear hunt. Not sure I'd have the nerve for it, but it would be worth the money (if you HAVE that much!) to do it.
Springmom
Either way, I hope the OP gets his polar bear hunt. Not sure I'd have the nerve for it, but it would be worth the money (if you HAVE that much!) to do it.
Springmom
Polar Bears -- probably the top predator on the planet. Any animal that can take on and kill a 2,000 lb bull walrus, kill it and haul it out from the edge of the water 300 yards inland is not to be trifled with.
Hmmm... I recall reading that since the Ulysses and SoHo satellites were launched in the 90's information from them, combined with information from ground observations of the sun have indicated a 4% increase in solar intensity over the last 25 years. Solar specialists and climatology experts think the sun is going through a cycle of "increased activity" that may last a few more decades.
According to one scientist, it is irresponsible to claim anthropomorphic causes for climate changes without studying the impact of a thermonuclear furnace that is over 330,000 times the mass of earth only 93 million miles away.
Of course, all of this is irrelevant since we all know that man is responsible for any changes to climate.
Hmmm... I recall reading that since the Ulysses and SoHo satellites were launched in the 90's information from them, combined with information from ground observations of the sun have indicated a 4% increase in solar intensity over the last 25 years. Solar specialists and climatology experts think the sun is going through a cycle of "increased activity" that may last a few more decades.
According to one scientist, it is irresponsible to claim anthropomorphic causes for climate changes without studying the impact of a thermonuclear furnace that is over 330,000 times the mass of earth only 93 million miles away.
Of course, all of this is irrelevant since we all know that man is responsible for any changes to climate.
CarbineCaleb
New member
Well, quoting from the recent educational report issued by the National Academy of Sciences, regarding the possibility of attributing recent warming to variation in solar forcing:
See:
http://dels.nas.edu/basc/Climate-HIGH.pdf
P.S. It's not just the National Academy of Sciences that holds the officially stated consensus opinion that they believe that the earth is warming and that it is due to man's activities. We can also add:
- National Academy of Sciences
- National Research Council
- American Meteorological Society
- American Geophysical Union
- American Institute of Physics
- American Astronomical Society
- American Chemical Society
- American Association for the Advancement of Science
This is the word from the National Academy, not from a particular scientist. It's good enough for me. It's a nice overview, in plain English, for anyone interested.
See:
http://dels.nas.edu/basc/Climate-HIGH.pdf
P.S. It's not just the National Academy of Sciences that holds the officially stated consensus opinion that they believe that the earth is warming and that it is due to man's activities. We can also add:
- National Academy of Sciences
- National Research Council
- American Meteorological Society
- American Geophysical Union
- American Institute of Physics
- American Astronomical Society
- American Chemical Society
- American Association for the Advancement of Science
Last edited:
EricTheBarbarian
Inactive
if only dinosaurs and wooly mammoths had been on the endagered species list......
if a species cant hang, they get weeded out. what good does people saving them do if they cant live on their own?
if a species cant hang, they get weeded out. what good does people saving them do if they cant live on their own?
Playboy
Playboy penguin, your opinion of trophy hunting may be based on personal opinion, but not on fact. I am kind of in your corner regarding the ethics of killing something one is not going to eat, unless it is vermin. However, the science supports trophy hunting. Wherever trophy hunting is allowed, the wildlife instantly have an economic value to the native population. Hence, the wildlife thrives. That is why to the global polar bear population is at an all time high, regardless of the shrinking habitat.
Playboy penguin, your opinion of trophy hunting may be based on personal opinion, but not on fact. I am kind of in your corner regarding the ethics of killing something one is not going to eat, unless it is vermin. However, the science supports trophy hunting. Wherever trophy hunting is allowed, the wildlife instantly have an economic value to the native population. Hence, the wildlife thrives. That is why to the global polar bear population is at an all time high, regardless of the shrinking habitat.